Uncategorized —

Study: Games do not unequivocally correlate to violence

The first long term study of a single game's affects on real world violence …

The debate over the role video games play in promoting violence reached a more dignified level with the publication of a new study that poses problems for those who want to make facile correlations between video games and violence. Internet Fantasy Violence: A Test of Aggression in an Online Game (Williams, D. & Skoric, M.) [PDF] is the first long-term study of the affects of a video game on players' aggressiveness, measured according to sociological standards (particularly, the Normative Beliefs in Aggression scale, or NOBAGS). The study saw "no strong effects associated with aggression," and even provided the basis for questioning just who it is that is most affected by so-called "violent video games." The method of analysis precluded the detection of "small effects."

The study looked at two aspects of aggression: the acceptance of violent behaviors among the test subjects, and the potential increase of violent behaviors on the part of those subjects. The test subjects were all new to the world of massive online role playing games (referred to in the study as MMRPGs), although some had played other sorts of video games before. While Williams and his team are careful to note that this study does not indicate that other games can't possibly have negative affects on gamers, the study was designed to test a threshold of violence that is statistically significant in the world of gaming.

The study tested for the effect of a particular kind of content that is substantially more violent than the average video game and should have more effect, given the highly repetitive nature of the violence. To make an analogy to television, this study took individuals who watched a wide range of television content and asked them to watch a large dose of known, violent fare. The results show that the exposure to this violent game exceeded their prior exposure, but more importantly, this exposure was much more violent than the average across the universe of content. In keeping with the analogy, this would be the equivalent of having television viewers displace most of their regular viewing with only strong violence and having the new total number of hours go up.

The 213 participants (167 male, 45 female, 1 "unstated") that were involved in the study had a mean age of 27.7 years, spanning 14 to 68 (!). The participants were primarily white and male (85% and 84% respectively), educated, and "middle class." The study noted that while it was not possible to measure "small effects," a population that would be appropriate for that determination would likely not change the results in any significant manner.

One thing about the study that immediately jumped out at me was the observation that "older participants in the experimental group were perhaps more strongly influenced by game play and argued with friends more than their younger counterparts," and that they were "overall less likely to report aggressive cognitions and behavior." Could it be that the Concerned Parents and Politicians Everywhere® are seeing the violence in video games largely on account of their own dispositions toward the games? The possibility cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, the researchers said that studying the MMRPG realm couldn't provide a full picture, because few adolescents play those games, as the mean age of the study clearly shows.

Of course, the study does not provide a definitive answer to the issues. Longer periods of playing time than one single month would be needed, and the population study, while robust, would be more convincing with greater numbers. Nevertheless, the picture revealed by Williams et al. should complicate the rhetoric of the opponents of adult-themed gaming, although one must always keep in mind the way an ostrich reacts to problems. One very important point remains, however:

Thus, if the content, context, and play length have some bearing on the effects, policy-makers should seek a greater understanding of the games they are debating. It may be that both the attackers and defenders of the industry’s various products are operating without enough information, and are instead both arguing for blanket approaches to what is likely a more complicated phenomenon. Researchers can play an important role by refining our gross-level understanding of violent game effects into something more rigorous.

So, at the very least, this study is proof of the fact that talking about what "violent video games" "do" to "gamers" is a gross generalization, and will always call for a critical eye. The situation is considerably more complex, and further studynot grandstandingis needed in the public discourse.

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher